HEMLATA SARASWAT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the communication dated 27. 4. 2006 (Annex. 3) denying her maternity leave on the ground that she is working as Medical Officer on consolidated salary and there is no provision in the Rules for granting her maternity leave.

(2.) THE petitioner has averred that on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, she came to be appointed on the post of Medical Officer on a consolidated salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month with issuance of appointment order on 15. 9. 2003 (Annex. 1) putting her engagement on contract basis; that accepting the offer of appointment, she joined services and presently is posted at Primary Health Centre, Kantalia, Sojat Road, Pali (Rajasthan ). According to the petitioner, she proceeded on medical leave on 29. 8. 2005 by submitting a leave application; and, after delivering a male child, resumed duties on 11. 1. 2006 with fitness certificate.

(3.) AS shall be noticed hereafter, the aforementioned decision in Neetu Choudhary has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Division Bench with rather strong comments on the attempt on the part of the Government to deny maternity benefit to its employees against the basic norms of equality, and so also against the propositions of gender justice and betterment of status of women; and, in view of settled position of law, there would not have been any necessity to expound further on the principles applicable but for the reason that such litigations are still of recurrence before this Court, it appears apposite to deal with the aspect a bit more in detail in the hope that such perfunctory approach would be corrected by the authorities concerned obviating the necessity of such avoidable litigation and also for the warning that for any such unjustified denial of maternity leave, the Officer concerned might be held personally responsible for the costs and consequences.